Long-Term Implications of Post-ACA Health Reform on State Health Care Policy.

In the midst of the COVID-19 outbreak, health care reform has again taken a major role in the 2020 election, with Democrats weighing Medicare for All against extensions of the Affordable Care Act, while Republicans quietly seem to favor proposals that would eliminate much of the ACA and cut Medicaid. Although states play a major role in health care funding and administration, public and scholarly debates over these proposals have generally not addressed the potential disruption that reform proposals might create for the current state role in health care. We examine how potential reforms influence state-federal relations, and how outside factors like partisanship and exogenous shocks like the COVID-19 pandemic interact with underlying preferences of each level of government. All else equal, reforms that expand the ACA within its current framework would provide the least disruption for current arrangements and allow for smoother transitions for providers and patients, rather than the more radical restructuring proposed by Medicare for All or the cuts embodied in Republican plans.

SGR patches and ICD-10 delays: what do they mean for providers?

In patching the Sustainable Growth Rate (SGR) for the 17th time, Congress also postponed the ICD-10 cutover until October 1, 2015. For providers, especially Medicare physicians seeking long-term financial success in a time of reform, understanding the impact of SGR and the importance of coding with specificity is paramount. Learn more about how your data--including the data reported to payers on your claims--will determine your future.

Federal and state benefits for transition age youth.

While all children face challenges as they become adults, children with chronic medical conditions or disabilities face unique barriers in their transition to adulthood. Children, especially those who are low income and have special needs, are eligible for a range of supports including income supports, health care coverage, vocational and educational supports. These supports are critical to sound health because they ensure access to necessary medical services, while also offsetting the social determinants that negatively affect health. Unfortunately, as children transition into adulthood, eligibility for these benefits can change abruptly or even end entirely. If medical providers have a better understanding of five transition key dates, they can positively impact their patients' health by ensuring continuous coverage through the transition to adulthood. The key dates are as follows: (1) transition services for students with an Individualized Education Program (IEP) must begin by age 16 (in some states such as Illinois, these services must be in place by age 14 1/2); (2) at age 18, eligibility for income supports may change; (3) at age 19, eligibility for Medicaid may change; (4) at graduation, eligibility for educational supports will end unless steps are taken to extend those benefits until age 22; and (5) when individuals prepare to enter the workforce, they will become eligible for vocational rehabilitation services. With an understanding of these key transition dates and how to partner with social services and advocacy organizations on behalf of their patients, medical providers can help to ensure that transition-age patients retain the holistic social services and supports they need to protect their health.

Beyond interests and institutions: US health policy reform and the surprising silence of big business.

Interest-based arguments do not provide satisfying explanations for the surprising reticence of major US employers to take a more active role in the debate surrounding the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA). Through focused comparison with the Bismarckian systems of France and Germany, on the one hand, and with the 1950s and 1960s in the United States, on the other, this article concludes that while institutional elements do account for some of the observed behavior of big business, a necessary complement to this is a fuller understanding of the historically determined legitimating ideology of US firms. From the era of the "corporate commonwealth," US business inherited the principles of private welfare provision and of resistance to any expansion of government control. Once complementary, these principles are now mutually exclusive: employer-provided health insurance increasingly is possible only at the cost of ever-increasing government subsidy and regulation. Paralyzed by the uncertainty that followed from this clash of legitimate ideas, major employers found themselves unable to take a coherent and unified stand for or against the law. As a consequence, they failed either to oppose it successfully or to secure modifications to it that would have been useful to them.

Consumer choice in health insurance exchanges: can we make it work?

Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (ACA), consumer choice plays a critical role: it drives the competitive market in health insurance plans that will operate through health insurance exchanges. As the 2014 deadline for establishing exchanges approaches, states face choices: they can either allow the federal government to manage an exchange on their behalf; take on a minimalist role by managing a state exchange or partnering with the federal exchange; or assume an activist role--by aiming to influence the price, design, and quality of the health insurance options available through exchanges and taking steps to support consumers' ability to choose among these options. This article discusses states' choices and the governance issues that they raise, first by describing the extent of discretion that states have in shaping the range of health plans on offer as well as the issues they will need to consider in choosing an exchange model. We then discuss the considerable body of evidence that addresses how people behave in individual insurance markets, concluding that it strongly supports the need for states to take an active role in shaping health insurance exchanges and ensuring that they support consumer choice.

The 2013 review of the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act: a call to action.

In September 2013, Congress again will review the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act of 2009. Fourteen states cover the fetus only (and not the pregnant woman) under the "unborn child" provision of the current law. That the Children's Health Insurance Program Reauthorization Act continues to make it possible for states to provide health insurance coverage to the fetus only has been critiqued for unnecessarily politicizing the law, dragging abortion and personhood debates into the matter of children's health insurance and creating unacceptable tensions between maternal and fetal health. Although the 2009 reauthorization attempted to remedy this issue by also providing coverage for the pregnant mother, it is imperative to review these changes and their effect before the 2013 reauthorization. To ensure optimum health care for both the fetus and the woman, we urge for removal of the "unborn child" pathway and promote coverage of both the fetus and the pregnant woman.

Hospital reimbursement incentives: is there a more effective option?--Part II.

As discussed in Part I of this article, hospital executives in Canada, Germany, and the United States manage their facilities' resources to maximize the incentives inherent in their respective reimbursement system and thereby increase their bottom line. It was also discussed that an additional supply of available hospitals, physicians, and other services will generate increased utilization. Part II discusses how the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act of 2010 will eventually fail since it neither controls prices nor utilization (e.g., imaging, procedures, ambulatory surgery, discretionary spending). This article concludes with the discussion of the German multipayer approach with universal access and global budgets that might well be a model for U.S. healthcare in the future. Although the German healthcare system has a number of shortfalls, its paradigm could offer the most appropriate compromise when selecting the economic incentives to reduce the percentage of the U.S. gross domestic product expenditure for healthcare from 17.4% to roughly 12.0%.